Thompson apologizes to Huckabee

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Avatar4321, Dec 14, 2007.

  1. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Me too:

     
  3. hjmick
    Offline

    hjmick Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    16,159
    Thanks Received:
    4,676
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +7,102
    Now, if only Fred could get some traction he'd be in business.
     
  4. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Oh, how silly. Here come the petty jibes, crocodile tears, and mud slinging. It will probably be more entertaining that watching pro-wrestling.
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    is telling the truth really mud slinging? I always thought mudslinging was lying about others.
     
  6. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    As I understand it, mud slinging does not necessarily have to consist of lies. I define mud slinging to include negative campaigning – giving information about an opponent’s history in a “negative light”. I would like to see someone campaign by never commenting on an opponent’s history. It would be great if a candidate would simply talk about his own ideas. If people are curious about the campaigner’s opponent’s record, then it should not be difficult to find out such information and the reasons for why the opponent voted as he did. I find it more informative to get information directly from the horse’s mouth – not from some other person’s negative spin.
     
  7. Detmurds
    Offline

    Detmurds VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    246
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +31
    Well, Fred is my #1 choice, and has been even before he officially got in the race. This tactic is pretty smart and doesn't make him look foolish like Hillary does.

    Pretty smart if one asks me!
     
  8. Alpha1
    Offline

    Alpha1 NAVY

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,719
    Thanks Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +193
    Following this reasoning, you have the fine makings of an ignorant, ill-informed voter....
    I don't say that be disrespectful, but thats what it amounts to....

    If someone runs on cutting taxes, I want to know what his record is, and I don't mind his opposition pointing out the truth.
    If he/she runs on civil rights, I want the opposition to point out if the candidate is really anti-civil rights.
    ETC.....
    I see nothing at all wrong with negative campaigning, as long as its FACT....
    I want all the help I can get to be made aware of all of their ideas and to compare their records with what any of them say now....
    And if ones lies about the others records, even that certainly tells me quite a bit...
    Petty crap about Obama's first grade goals, or Rudys love life, or the ages of Thomson's or Kucinich's wives is akin to mud-slinging and irrelevant to being president....and tells me more about the clown that brings that shit up than it does about the other candidates.....and I WANT to know those that stoop that low as to mention those things....
     
  9. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    I disagree. One can be an informed voter without relying on what one candidate says about another candidate that you are interested in. If I want to know how candidate B voted on different issues and why he voted the way that he did, I would visit his website. I would call or write emails if I want more answers. I might turn to a relatively unbiased resource or web site if I were afraid that his team would lie to me. I would not count on his opponent to give me the absolute, clear, and unvarnished truth.

    Suppose that an opponent said, “Bush Sr. lied when he said ‘No new taxes’. That’s all that you need to know. Don’t vote for him if you don’t want new taxes.” I would have several questions. Did he really lie? Under what circumstances did he give us new taxes? What about the good qualities about Bush Sr. that might overshadow this “tax” incident?

    Oh well. At least negative campaigning is better than telling lies. I guess that we just put different degrees of importance on different strategies. I just contend that it is in poor taste to go negative and think that it would be great to see an all-positive campaign.
     
  10. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,514
    Thanks Received:
    4,844
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,337
    Nah, mudslinging is just negative attack ads, as I see it, whether true or not.

    The question is, can anyone name the candidate right now who ISN'T slinging mud?
     

Share This Page